C (Conclusion). The first sentence of your analysis/CREAC is your Conclusion.
1. Your Conclusion should only be a single sentence.
2. Your conclusion should only address the sub-issue at hand. That is, when stating the Conclusion to a subsection, you are not stating a broad conclusion that answers your Question Presented (unless the issue does not feature sub-rules). Instead, you are only providing an explanation of whether the facts at hand satisfy the elements/sub-rule at issue in the subsection itself.
5. I recommend that you include your Conclusion as your heading to the subsection. In that way, the reader will immediately understand the issue that you are addressing in the subsection and the conclusion that you are drawing regarding that issue. The benefit of drafting clear Conclusions that include salient facts and using those Conclusions as subsection headings is that the reader will literally be able to skim through your headings in a matter of seconds and discern the basis of your reasoning. Strongly worded Conclusions/headings will therefore make your writing all the more compelling.
6. This should be obvious, but be sure to frame your Conclusion as such - a conclusion, not an issue statement. You are not trying to "hide the ball" from the reader. If you word your heading as an issue statement, then you leave the reader wondering what the answer to the issue statement is, requiring the reader to work and exert more effort to get the answer. Lawyers do not have a lot of time, so do not make them work more than necessary--just give them your Conclusion. The lawyers--professors, supervising attorneys, judges, or whomever--may not agree with your conclusion, but they will appreciate you being straight forward.
7. You could include a "because" clause to explicitly demonstrate why you reached the particular conclusion.
Sample Conclusion/Sub-Heading:
I. A court would likely find that Petersen's PPI System constituted a trade secret.
II. A court would likely find that Dimitri acquired Ms. Petersen's trade secret through improper means.
III. A court would likely find that Dimitri used Ms. Petersen's trade secret without consent.
1. Your Conclusion should only be a single sentence.
2. Your conclusion should only address the sub-issue at hand. That is, when stating the Conclusion to a subsection, you are not stating a broad conclusion that answers your Question Presented (unless the issue does not feature sub-rules). Instead, you are only providing an explanation of whether the facts at hand satisfy the elements/sub-rule at issue in the subsection itself.
3. In your Conclusion, use specific language from the corresponding legal rules (often referred to as "terms of art") or standards to make the link between your Conclusion and the law obvious to the reader.
4. If possible, incorporate a few salient/relevant facts into your Conclusion that relate to the particular sub-issue at hand. However, do not allow your Conclusion to become endlessly long.
6. This should be obvious, but be sure to frame your Conclusion as such - a conclusion, not an issue statement. You are not trying to "hide the ball" from the reader. If you word your heading as an issue statement, then you leave the reader wondering what the answer to the issue statement is, requiring the reader to work and exert more effort to get the answer. Lawyers do not have a lot of time, so do not make them work more than necessary--just give them your Conclusion. The lawyers--professors, supervising attorneys, judges, or whomever--may not agree with your conclusion, but they will appreciate you being straight forward.
7. You could include a "because" clause to explicitly demonstrate why you reached the particular conclusion.
Sample Conclusion/Sub-Heading:
I. A court would likely find that Petersen's PPI System constituted a trade secret.
II. A court would likely find that Dimitri acquired Ms. Petersen's trade secret through improper means.
III. A court would likely find that Dimitri used Ms. Petersen's trade secret without consent.
